Yale Daily News

The A&A is by far the coolest building on campus. I'm really happy that they're finally giving it a thorough and respectful renovation. I'm holding my breath, however, to see whether the addition looks any good. It might just ruin it.

It's great that Yale (through Stern and Gwathmey) keeps and respects its "difficult" buildings -- whether A+A or Morse & Stiles. Weaker institutions would shun these important places; Yale should be commended for its stewardship of them.

one thing is for sure: the YDN is well connected in architecture circles.

Are you kidding? A&A has been an eyesore and an accident-in-waiting since the day it opened its doors. Seriously--it's like music today: some guy took a survey, decided waht HADN'T been done (despite whether such un-doneness had any merit), and made something JUST TO BE DIFFERENT.

Worse: the "hand hammered" look caught on, marring the streetscape of innumerable cities. Gah! about the only good thing about the building was that from the inside, the outside was hidden from view.

But, whatever...

(BTW: I *LOVE* MIT's new Stata center--talk about good site work: it not only "fits in" but it enhances the area--it REEKS of MIT; Yale's A&A reeks, but not of anything good...and it's dirt and dirty walls are certainly reminiscent of its dire surroundings--additive in a negative way, I guess...)

The A&A building is easily the most impressive building on campus. An acquired taste, sure (I hated it for the first three years I spent at Yale), but awesome nonetheless.

Dear #3, what do you mean YDN is well connected in architecture circles? I don't see there being many articles about architecture. What would the implications be of them being well-connected?

Dear #4, why are you qualified to engage in architectural criticism? Did you study it? Doesn't sound like it.

#4: Well, the Stata Center reeks alright - but of litigation. Talk about good site work? Maybe you should ask MIT about that. I'm going to guess they'll disagree......

the A&A will always be called the A&A. The RUDOLPH BUILDING? never..

I have to agree with #4

The A&A is a lot of things:

1. Unique/Interesting - Definitely

2. Worth preserving in its original context - Maybe

3. The greatest building on campus - Certainly not

I think it's hillarious how many students/alums will attempt to use an elitist academic argument to defend what is an obvious eye-sore that is neither timeless nor profound.

In response to #5, I bet that there is a strong correlation between your time spent in lofty architecture/art classes and your new-found appreciation of what is, frankly, an ugly, out-dated statement.

In response to #6, why do you presume that someone must be 'qualified' to engage in architectural criticism. And, what would u consider the criteria for such a position - should critics be only those who have studied it in academia, or maybe only architects can properly judge architecture? Whatever your answer, i would not be surprised if your criteria only amount to something designed to exclude 95% of the people observing the A&A from the conversation.

To #9: I'm glad that you appreciate the A&A as unique and interesting. I think it's kind of naive and shortsighted of you, however, to dismiss anyone who thinks the A&A is not ugly and is a great building as "using an elitist academic argument" that was learned in "loft architecture/art classes."

I don't think there is anything about the A&A that is really that difficult to understand. I don't think one needs to have studied architecture to realize that it's a really cool building. I'm an English major and have never studied architecture (more than a casual appreciation) but I just really like the way the thing looks. "Ugly" and "eyesore" it is not. "Out-dated"? No more so than the gothic or the thousands of forgettable mid-century semi-historicist buildings you find lining the streets of New Haven.

I guess the issue here (brought to light by #6 especially) is: why do non-architects always talk as if they know enough about architecture to comment on the quality of a work of architecture? I think #6 was wrong about that - because although architecture is a form of art for the architect, it is also an object that goes into the public realm that the greater public has to live with. I wouldn't say, let the masses decide what gets built (because the masses ultimately often made bad decisions) but architecture is certainly something that is allowed to be up for discussion. I would just encourage those who don't know that much (including myself) to be open minded and not immediately dismissive.

In any case, I just have an instinctual positive reaction towards the aesthetic of the A&A, whereas many others clearly have an instinctual negative reaction. I guess it's like that with any work of art, like painting, a novel, an album, etc - some people just like it and others don't. I just wish those who don't like it would stop talking as if those who do are idiots. Maybe the vice versa should also be true, although I've never heard anyone say that someone who doesn't like the A&A is an idiot.

In response to #10

I clearly did not state that any one who appreciates the A&A building should be automatically dismissed, nor did I dismiss them. Instead, I said that I was amused by 'how many students/alums will attempt to use an elitist academic argument' - 'many' not 'all' – specifically those who automatically devalue the opinions of those of us who agree/disagree based on assumed lack of academic knowledge. If i had asserted that ‘all’ people like the building are a certain way, i would have been, as you suggested, 'short-sighted' – but naive, probably not (consider looking that word up; in this case it sounds like a misuse).

That the A&A is a 'really cool building’ is entirely your opinion and you are entitled to it, just as I am entitled to my opinion that it is an ugly eye-sore that adds to the stereotypes of downtown new haven as a mixed bag of either pretty, unsophisticated neo-gothic buildings (which I love regardless of whether they’re really considered unauthentic or not) or utterly dreary, out-dated architectural statements.

In response to “although I've never heard anyone say that someone who doesn't like the A&A is an idiot,” I’d say you might never have heard that, but I have and the undertones are present in #6’s comments. #6 states that, “#4 why are you qualified to engage in architectural criticism? Did you study it? Doesn't sound like it.” My opinion happens to align with #4 so perhaps I took special offense, but if that doesn’t sound like academic condescension, perhaps you and I share two things: 1. distaste for #6’s assertion about non-architects and 2. an inclination for naïvely dismissing anyone with a different opinion.

Im just kidding about number two of course! But I think you read more into my post than was there – I called no one an ‘idiot’ – I just wanted to set some balance in the conversation and remind the more supercilious among us that other opinions matter even within an academic discussion (I’ve taken my fare share of art and architecture classes for a non-architecture major and was often alarmed at the dismissive tone towards the opinions of people outside of our ivy-lined walls.)